Germany 1-0 Ghana: Ghana pay the price for not picking up Özil, but both progress

June 23, 2010

The starting line-ups

Like yesterday’s Uruguay v Mexico game – a strange contest, because both teams were happy with the scoreline as it stood for most of the second half.

As such, mentality and strategy are difficult to assess, but these are certainly the best two sides in the group, and they put on a great show in Durban that resulted in a narrow victory for Germany, the group winners.

Germany made two changes from the side that lost to Serbia. One was enforced – with Miroslav Klose’s suspension giving way to the popular Cacau – whilst the other one was tactical, Jerome Boateng replacing Holger Badstuber. Ghana’s team was as expected – the main story being Kevin Prince Boateng facing his brother Jerome, in a World Cup first.

The match panned out broadly as expected. Germany dominated possession in midfield, involved their full-backs more in build-up play, and pressed high up the pitch. Ghana played their usual game – sitting deep, being disciplined and excellent defensively, and breaking at speed through the wide players (the attacking band of three seemed to rotate throughout), and long balls to the lone striker, Asamoah Gyan.

Positional surprises

There were two surprising developments in terms of positioning. Firstly, despite Philip Lahm being comfortable on either side, and more than happy to return to left-back, Jerome Boateng was deployed as a straight swap for Badstuber, rather than with Lahm shifting across. This probably helped the cohesion of the side, and Lahm a has a good relationship with his Bayern teammate Thomas Muller down the right, but it did cause problems when Boateng (less technically gifted) ventured forward, as he was forced to come back on his right-hand side.

Ozil (in pink) constantly found space "in the hole", with the Ghana central midfielders (in yellow) higher up the pitch, not picking him

The other – and much more crucial – surprise was the way Ghana set out their midfield. In their loose 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3 system, you would expect the deepest midfielder, the tough-tackling Anthony Annan, to move goalside of Mesut Ozil and pick him up whenever Germany had the ball. But there was no thought to do this – instead he, KP Boateng and the third midfielder, generally Kwadwo Asamoah, looked to press and close down Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira when they got the ball, leaving Ozil free behind Cacau.

A fairly similar tactic was what defeated Australia in the first game. The Australians tried to press all over the pitch, but because they only had two central midfielders they left Ozil free, and he ran riot. The situation here was not quite as grave for Ghana, because unless Ozil immediately looked for a forward pass, Annan was generally able to recover, and Ghana were able to restore a 3 v 3 situation in the centre of midfield.

Ozil was not as effective as he was against Australia, but the time and space he was afforded still caused Ghana problems. Ghana were effectively treating him as a withdrawn striker rather than an offensive midfield player, and he used this freedom to drop into deep and wide positions in order to dictate play. Germany’s clearest chance of the first half came when he was left free, one-on-one with Richard Kingson, but blasted it straight at the goalkeeper. The Ghana centre-backs were primarily concerned with Cacau and failed to pick Ozil up – had Klose been fit, his superior movement would have created even more space for Ozil.

Ghana have chances, but Ozil strikes

Despite Germany having the better of the game, Ghana were breaking and creating chances of their own. Yet again, they lacked clinical finishing, and for all the pace and direct running they offered, you were never completely sure they were going to actually put the ball in the net. They’ve been extremely impressive at this tournament and yet have relied on two penalties for the goals.

That should not detract from the performances of Gyan, the scorer of both penalties. He works hard throughout the game when Ghana don’t have the ball – dropping deep but also moving onto one of the opposition centre-backs, making them unavailable for a pass. When Ghana do win possession, he’s then in a position to make a run into one of the channels to receive a ball over the top, although he often finds himself with little support.

When Germany’s goal came, it was inevitably from Ozil. Whether you can blame the amount of time and space he had upon Annan not being goalside of him in open play is debatable – Germany’s attack leading to the goal was hardly swift, and Ghana should have had time to take up a decent defensive shape and pick up players. But leaving a player as dangerous as Ozil in that amount of space on the edge of the box is asking for trouble, and if Annan had been given more of a specific defensive task (not a man-marking job, just a deeper role with the intention of tracking Ozil’s movement), then the goal might not have happened. Regardless, it was a tremendous strike – and was in keeping with the high standard of the game.

Ozil was clearly left in too much space for the goal

It was a match that seemed to die soon after. Germany were more than content with the 1-0 lead, and the Ghana bench were visibly aware of the score from the Australia v Serbia game, so would have been known that a 1-0 defeat was good enough for them – conceding late goals on the counter-attack after pushing forward for an equaliser may have worsened their goal difference, and sent them out. Therefore, the final 15 minutes were played at a slow pace, both sides were happy with the outcome, and we were denied what, under different conditions, would have been an excellent finish.

Conclusion

Germany are clearly an excellent side. The movement and fluidity in their team is admirable, and the fowards runs of both Khedira and Ozil are very difficult to pick up. They also create space for Schweinsteiger, who looks truly at home in the centre of midfield.

Question marks remain about the defence – they look slightly vulnerable to counter-attacks – and the wide players can both be rather frustrating. Cacau did a decent job upfront but no more, and Klose clearly fits into the side better.

England must make sure to take care of Ozil. Both Germany’s wins have come when Ozil was given space to play – Gareth Barry will be crucial in tracking runs, something he did well against Algeria. Matching Germany by deploying an extra central midfielder is the best bet, but Fabio Capello seems unwilling to change England’s 4-4-2 system.

Ghana deservedly progress, although it is slightly disappointing that they lost this game because of a slight defensive problem – as up until then, they had been faultless in that respect. They certainly struggle for goals, but were up against decent defences in this group – maybe they’ll find more joy against the US.

70 Responses to “ Germany 1-0 Ghana: Ghana pay the price for not picking up Özil, but both progress ”

Retro Jay on June 24, 2010 at 12:17 am

Very interesting match…ironically the winner of this one may not be the happier of the two teams. England though they have been ordinary so far are still england and though i would expect Germany to win it will be a very tough match. Ghana on the other hand have a very winnable match against a tough USA team,the big worry for Ghana will be who will finish off the chances they will make. As to the match today if Ghana strikers were more clinical i definitely could have seen a 2-2 draw in this one.

Anonymous on June 24, 2010 at 12:31 am

I detect a slight rooting against the US here. Somewhat understandable, that draw was a tough one to swallow given the nature of the 2nd goal.

DaMaestro on June 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Im somewhat surprised there isnt any analysis from the past two US games which had some tactical quirks to them.

michael on June 24, 2010 at 9:39 pm

I agree, but it just seems to be a case of sour grapes.

interesting on June 24, 2010 at 12:38 am

“…but these are certainly the best two sides in the group…”
I’m not sure I’d agree that Ghana is *certainly* one of the best two teams in that group. Considering the number of goals they’ve managed to score so far (2 pks), drawing against Australia, and Serbia not winning their last game as everyone expected, they really are lucky to have made it through.

ltjbr on June 24, 2010 at 12:50 am

It’s always a tough goal to make that kind of decision over just 3 games, but I will say as a US supporter that I was kinda hoping Serbia would make it through instead of Ghana.

tom on June 24, 2010 at 1:31 am

I agree entirely. Ghana played 2 games vs 10 man opponents, including playing vs Australia with 10 men for 65 minutes and still couldn’t score other than penalties. If anything I thought they were the worst team in the group.

jupiter53 on June 24, 2010 at 1:31 am

I can see why you would say this but given the way Australia beat Serbia it would have been interesting to have seen the result of Australia-Ghana with 11 vs 11.

rob on June 24, 2010 at 3:42 am

I agree with you, Ghana was definitely not one of the best teams. They floundered opportunities and never looked seriously like scoring. they couldn’t win against Australia despite being down by 10 men, and in fact were lucky that Luke Whiltshire didn’t score against them in the closing moments of the game.

The game between serbia and Australia was excellent, and I would rate both Australia and Serbia superior to Ghana.

Kwame on June 24, 2010 at 9:58 am

Ghana drew with Aus on purpose, giving the Aussies a lifeline against Serbia.

Ghana defeating Aus would have been bad cos then the Aussies would have nothing to play for against Serbia. The results worked for us.

Serbia-Australia was enthralling. Ivanovic and Krasic were constantly fed to splice their deep-lying opponents. The former’s delivery far surpassed the latter’s. Unfortunately for CSKA Moscow, Krasic hasn’t bolstered his value during this time away.
Australia gave as good as they got on-ball, and were fluid movers. If anything, Bresciano and Wilkshire were central-midfield playmakers.
As for why Germany retained Lahm on the left, I imagine it was to maintain the experience/inexperience balance. Podolski and Lahm being the world-weary got-the-tshirt two.

bathoz on June 24, 2010 at 12:53 am

Watching from the stands, I thought Annan was generally excellent.

Also, it was played in Johannesburg, not Durban.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 6:14 am

First off, congrats for being able to watch world cup live =)

Both Annan and Schweinsteiger were great in their roles (again). Statistically speaking, Annan did have almost 90% passing (47/53) and currently has the best success rate of all midfielders in the tourney that have played 3 games already: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/players/passes.html

Schweinsteiger is leading in total passes, and is looking especially well in his success rate on long passes (though Xabi Alonso will probably beat him in the 3rd game).

Khedira leading in total distance covered so far, Annan again looking really good here on distance covered without possession (right behind three Australians and one Greek).

ZM is right though, Özil clearly did have too much space to exploit for the goal. Müller’s pass was great though too. He just had one season at professional football so far…

dropbear on June 24, 2010 at 1:01 am

it wasn’t a good game from Germany and IMO everyone (beside Neuer – he plays an excellent WC so far) was quite scared to make a mistake that would kick them out. Considering the inexperience and how young the team is it wasn’t suprizing. Klose was missed so sadly – Cacau was found too often in a midfield position….

Podolski, hm …. IMO he is not the right type of player for such games, Kros might have been an alternative here…

anyway… congratulation Germany….wrt Ghana: they made it with just 2 penalty goals (1 was a present from the referee) …oh well, every continent might have his “Italy”

Eddy Grant on June 24, 2010 at 7:41 am

As to Podolski/Kroos I couldn’t agree more. I don’t get why Loew sticks to Podolski even though he is terribly weak in the defensive role of a midfielder and rather inflexible in his interpretation of the offensive part. And indeed, Klose seems to fit far better, a (understandably) underrated player.

Btw, the penalty was a present from Serbia, but certainly not from the referee…

Daniel N. on June 24, 2010 at 1:12 am

The only thing I’d have to say regarding today’s formation was how technical astute Boateng actually is, compared to what impression people have of him. He is naturally a CB who has been deployed as RB mainly. He had a few moments in the match where his trickery led him to escape tight spaces and he has a history of doing so for club and at the youth level. He is a far better on the ball defender than either Friedrich and Mertesacker but Germany doesn’t have better choices.

I’d probably also gowith him on the left against England to track Lennon/SWP, and Johnson, whereas Badstuber would be outpaced far more.

Klose’s absence showed a lot as his off the ball movement is superior to Cacau who plays far too deep and therein also lies Germany’s problem going up. They are far too reliant on Oezil for creativity and Podolski had another stinker as he shows no ball awareness and plays mainly on instinct. This is also the case of playing someone because there’s really no better option but at this point one would hope that Klose’s return can invigorate him as he looks lost without him.

ralph on June 24, 2010 at 2:05 am

I have to agree on Boateng. He definitely is more sound technically than our two CB’s, but he was only compared to Lahm so this doesn’t really matter in this case.

After the match this afternoon I don’t think Capello will replace Milner by anybody, so I would rather go with Badstuber against England because he will imho be more likely to prevent his really superb crosses in behind the CB’s.

All in all I’m pretty confident Germany will progress with Klose coming back and hopefully Schweinsteiger recovered until sunday.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 6:19 am

I would think so too. Cacau didn’t have a bad game, but Klose looked more comfortable working against the CB’s and in creating space. Just bring Cacau after Klose’s yellow

Then again he looked really good in creating that space for Özil, three players dragged by him away from Özil.

Gustavo Carnesella on June 24, 2010 at 1:15 am

Özil did had too much space, but it wasn’t his best game. He often missed easy passes and seemed off the pace of the game (a really, really fast one). But, with him being the player you can expect anything from, he scored that tremendous goal for the winner. After that, both teams slowed down, as anyone would do in that situation.

Ghana is a good side, the strongest african by kilometers of distance. They not only have a good manager, but their players understand each position very well, and are good on the ball. They are breaking classical sthereotypes for african teams (powerful, tricky and offensive, but naive). I really can’t say who will win between US and Ghana, it’s really unpredictable, even more than Germany x England.

About this one, Germany have a slight edge: they’ve played better in a far tougher group. But I’m looking forward to see what Capello will bring to the game: he surely won’t commit the same mistakes Verbeek and Rajevac did, by letting Özil totally free. Maybe he doesn’t even need to change players: only a slight change of positioning, with Gerrard assuming a central role, Barry behind the midfield tracking Ozil and Rooney dropping off the left can make things tough to Germany.

Someone on June 24, 2010 at 1:48 am

Well, having Rooney on the left would be a waste I think. Also he would try to cut inside a lot, leaving Lahm free. Don’t think Rooney would be disciplined enough to play on the left.

Tino on June 24, 2010 at 2:48 am

Rooney has the discipline if needed. He showed that in Manyoo while Cristiano was the man.

Gustavo Carnesella on June 24, 2010 at 1:19 am

oh, and about Cacau: in my opinion, he is better than Klose. Klose would never pick a superb pass like in the one Cacau picked Ozil (and he missed), and helping defensively too: Cacau recovered a couple of balls near his central midfielders, whilst Klose tried and got sent-off…

dropbear on June 24, 2010 at 1:47 am

IMO the German’s attack was quite limited and it was quite easy for Ghana to defend. One of the reasons (IMO) was the lack of variety e.g. flanks from Lahm: there was just no addressee in the penalty area for such balls ….. with Klose Germany is/was much more dangerous and with his runs he also pulls a defence more apart than Cacau did… IMO Cacau wasn’t a real challenge for Ghana’s CBs….

CW on June 24, 2010 at 2:43 pm

I have to agree. Cacau is a great player, but not suited to play as a lone striker. He is much better suited to play with a target man beside him as he was playing in Stuttgart with Gomez along his side. They were a great combination.

xl on June 24, 2010 at 7:55 pm

I’m not sure about that. I remember a lot of good assists from Klose, as well in the national team as in Munich (when he played with Luca Toni).

BerkeleyBernie on June 24, 2010 at 1:25 am

One comment on the German defense: although Ghana was able to sometimes able to beat their markers to get in good goal-scoring position, the German players *immediately* corrected their mistakes. They didn’t allow two touches to get off a shot- after the first touch, they were right back with their mark to block or tackle. It will require top-notch finishing to take advantage of their defensive errors.

Filip on June 24, 2010 at 1:45 am

Ghana is a strange team. They can’t create sitter chances, they don’t have the most convincing defence but just seem so tough in the middle that the score can only be 1:0 in their games. The comparison to Italy is almost correct in a manner that they’re just tough to beat. US will struggle mightily against them. Germany, on the other hand, can be handled, especially with Barry and Lamps in the middle and Milner on the right. From the previous discussions, we established that 4-4-2 is not the best formation against the German 4-2-3-1. Should Fabio switch to the same?

Blipp on June 24, 2010 at 1:49 am

A couple of small remarks here:

“Jonathan” is actually Jonathan Mensah, a key player of the side winning the U20 World Championship contracted to Udinese Calcio in Serie A. He started for the injured Isaac Vorsah. Unlike the several years older Lee Addy who is actually a full back Mensah jnr. is a very calm and composed player. This tournament will certainly not the be last we’ve seen of him.

As for Jerome Boateng, his primary positions are defensive midfield and central defense, but he can play both full back positions as well if he absolutely has to. On the left he has performed better than on the right in the limited number of matches he’s been put there. Going forward he is uncomfortable on either flank.

And finally there is Asamoah Djan. He did indeed have a decent tournament so far, but he is not really suited to the lone striker role. He does much better as a false Nine or in a three man attack as his current club Stade Rennais usually sports. Ayew, the so far horribly ineffective Tagoe and Kwadwo Asamoah need to support him more. To be fair it has to be said that Asamoah has been nursing an injury throughout this tournament and is playing through pain and medications.

Defensively both teams do rather well collectively but have one weakness in their back four. For Germany it is Per Mertesacker, who has been poor in every regard for the national team in quite a while now. He is slow, absolutely terrible on the ball and his positioning has let him down repeatedly so far. Fortunately for Germany Loew finally realized just how good the vastly underrated Friedrich is. He’s been mopping up after his unreliable partner all evening once again.

For Ghana the bad apple is John Paintsil at the right back. He is one of those players who don’t mature with age and experience. Just how often did he f up Ghana’s offside trap and was embarrassed by Podolski ? He was lucky the FC Cologne striker wasn’t in a better shape tonight. Considering Inkoom’s substantial improvements in defense over the last season at FC Basel he is the all around better player. Considering the inexperience of the team ( remember: there are all of four starters of the 2006 side left ) starting the Europa League finalist over the U20 World Champion is somewhat understandable though.

I don’t have anything to add about the tactical aspects of the game, those are pretty much spot on in ZM’s piece as usual.

bradluen on June 24, 2010 at 4:34 am

I think Mertesacker distributed well. OK, enough with the positives.

Man, Mertesacker’s defending was atrocious today. Ghana had half a dozen chances in the box and I think five of them were partly or mostly his fault; he owes Lahm in particular a couple of beers. It was one thing getting beaten to headers by the giant Zigic in the Serbia game; it’s another when players half a foot shorter than you are out-heading you. I mean he’s not in the side for his fancy footwork. Seems like the kind of player Rooney could play himself into form against.

Juwel on June 24, 2010 at 2:00 am

I can see England going with the same eleven as today, but with Emile Heskey or Peter Crouch instead of Jermain Defoe for an extra body to aid ball retention. I think Gareth Barry would play deeper generally, to cover Mesut Ozil’s space rather than track or man-mark him. And Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard asked to bother Bastian Schweinsteiger while the other presses Philipp Lahm if he plays right-back.

cannonpool on June 24, 2010 at 2:14 am

I disagree about these 2 teams being the best in the group. Australia outplayed Ghana with 10 men. They beat Serbia and only conceded because they where pushing to score more. If not for the out of character tactical decisions and performance for the first game and a bit of bad luck with some refereeing calls (the German handball against Ghana was almost the same as Kewells for example) then Australia would have easily made it through.

rob on June 24, 2010 at 3:45 am

I agree with you there 100%. very unconvincing from ghana who were lucky not to lose to 10 men australia team in the closing moments. Had Australia not let in a goal from serbia through a goalkeeping mistake, and they had taken their further 2 clear chances to score, it would have been good-bye ghana. Not a deserved 2nd round team in my opinion.

Filip on June 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Had the Aussies not had Schwarzer in the net for the first 45 minutes, it would have been
3:0 for Serbia and buy-buy Ghana and Australia as well.
I tip Ghana to do better then Serbia and Australia would have, had they passed on to the next rounds. I think that’s what ZM’s thinking when making the comment regarding the overall quality of the teams in this group.

edswood on June 24, 2010 at 5:43 am

Ozil gets all the love in this game, but he did lose alot of balls tonight, and didnt look his best in my opinion. Lahm to me was the man of the match. He saved two sure goals. He came out of nowhere to block that one shot that definitely would of been a goal. Mertsacker owes him more than a beer, I am thinking his first born. Cacau might be the better overall player, but I just think with this German team Klose is a way better fit, and would definitely think he starts against England. England might have the better overall talent, but we cant forget the psychological advantage that Germany has considering the history between these two teams. I think that England is going to be very tight going into this game, which should give Germany the advantage. Shaping up to be the hardest game of the next stage, besides the possibility of Spain, Brazil.

As for Ghana, I agree with others here, that they were not the second best team of the group. They are technically sound for an African team, play good defense, and they create good breaks. Still, they just dont seem to have anyone to finish, and play with no sense of urgency. If the USA defense gives up another early goal, then they stand a chance, otherwise I just dont see them winning that game.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 6:43 am

Lahm would make for a good man of the match pick, but more Germans did look good. Namely Friedrich, Schweinsteiger and Neuer (aside of his saves, the throw for that one counter attack, if only our players would exploit that better ;=). Personally I liked Müller as well.

Klose will likely start, agree with you there. However, I do believe Ghana can definitely win that game against USA. USA did not look much better at finishing either, although they do clearly have the better goalie.

I did like Howard, Donovan and especially Bradley so far, just as Annan & Boateng (this guy can play ball, glad this media campaign against him in Germany is coming to a halt, thanks to his great display so far) on the Ghanaian side.

While the game isn’t a ‘classic’ as the battle ENG – GER, it should surely make for a nice game.

Calvin on June 24, 2010 at 6:09 am

These are my thoughts :

1. Germany missed Klose due to his movements, awareness, link-up play and positional sense. Without him leading the attack and distracting the opposite defences, Ozil was alone and it was easy for Ghana to deny and close down spaces for him to play passes or make runs. Cacau was dynamic but he didnt do it in areas where he should. His understanding with others is also poor, perhaps because of his lack of playing time in the team.

2. Germany’s weaknesses were exposed defensively. A lot of people have highlighted the astrocious defending by Mertsacker and they are correct. He also constantly lost possession, misplaced passes and made wrong clearances. Probably it was the nerves but he’s an experienced pro. Perhaps Leow should bring on Badstuber as CB instead agianst England.

But what is more worrying is the lack of ability on ball winning (apart from Bastian S.). On the contrary all Ghana players are comfortable in closing down and tackle to win the ball back. Because of these weaknesses, they put under a lot of unncessary pressure by Ghana.

3. Lahm was my MOM by far. I have yet to see a better football in this WC. He was awesome.

4. Podolski was very poor and hardly offered any threat down the wings or close down Ghana attackers. Probably Leow need to consider if Marin would be a better choice.

5. Boateng did a much better job than Badstuber and I am confident he could do even better given more chances.

I think England should adopt a more pragmatic line up against Germany and play on counters if they wish to progress further. If Capello sticks to the same formation and tactics as yesterday, Germany will roll over them.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 6:54 am

Well Mertesacker did have a really bad Euro Cup in 2008, and although his club season at Werder Bremen wasn’t terrible he definitely wasn’t as dominating as in 2006. Funny enough, in 2006 he was our best defender at the world cup (ahead of Lahm), with Friedrich being our worst (though played at right-back, which clearly isn’t his best position – very happy he can finally show his skills off where he fits best). Now one could definitely make a case for it being the other way around, Friedrich clearly ahead of Mertesacker at the moment. I do not believe that Tasci is better though, so for this world cup Mertesacker will have to fight and improve with the opposition.

Calvin on June 24, 2010 at 7:18 am

Yes if not for Friedrich Germany’s defence would have conceded a goal or two. I have seen Tasci a few times for Germany and he looked shaky and ponderous. Do you think Badstuber would is a better choice ?

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 7:37 am

To be honest, as much as I like Badstuber – no. Not yet – I am banking on Mertesacker improving his play. Maybe not 2006 class, but surely better than so far. It is probably the key question now for us (aside of Klose’s scoring touch). If he remains shaky, we could be out against England.

In the future? I would call Badstuber most gifted, he surely has the potential, but so do other ‘younglings’. Many German fans questioned why Löw did not bring Hummels (Borussia Dortmund) or Höwedes (Schalke 04), also young players with great seasons. Both were part of Germany’s U21 Euro Cup win (final against England with Milner), Höwedes played alongside Boateng as CB (both impressive, arguably along with Neuer the best performances of the team). Hummels had a nice game in the final, but did only play 2 games for them, both as holding midfielder.

Add Westermann (injured right before tourney), Tasci, Boateng and well Badstuber in the mix and we should hopefully be okay for the future at CB.

Now how do we clone Lahm though – Boateng looked better than Badstuber in his game, but none of them looks even close to Lahm

Bativans on June 24, 2010 at 7:36 am

Podolski is poor, however he provides speed, shooting and vision (though his skill often let him down), which are important to the team (and probably Marlin cannot do). Mueller is never a good winger, maybe Loew should think about his as well?

dropbear on June 24, 2010 at 7:59 am

Marin also wasn’t convincing when he came in against Serbia…. Podolski need some space in front of him, he is just not flexible enough as a player and Ghana’s style definitely didn’t suit him… if he has some space he can be quite efficient…

Kros might be an alternative and could also swap position with Oezil during a game…

problem is that Loew tries to spare him as a substitue for Schweinsteiger if required… (like against Ghana)

Calvin on June 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

Agreed on Podolski’s physical presence and shooting abilities. However my opinion is that by having Marin’s pace on the left, the opposition defences will be distracted to allow Oezil, Klose, Mueller and others space to create and score goals.

In yesterday’s game, the Ghana defenders sat tight at the middle and closed off the channel. They managed to close space for Germany’s attackers since they did not have to cover the flanks.That’s why Oezil was trying to drift to left and right.

Yes, agreed on Mueller, he sort of faded off in the last 2 games.

Perhaps Leow should consider starting Kroos and Marin on the flanks.

I think England’s weakness is CB and Glen Johnson on the RB. This is something that must e exploited.

At the same time we can expect Barry to cover Oezil so Germany needs more options in their attacking formation.

CW on June 24, 2010 at 11:27 am

Podolski ist a big problem. There is no position on the field that matches his talents. He cannot head the ball even if his life depended on it (he scored one header and was laughing afterwards). He can’t dribble, he can’t pass, he does not have the awareness neccessary to play a defence splitting pass. He’s basicially limited to running and his incredible shooting. But I certainly do not know where to put him or why he plays at all!

He’s overmatched as a lone striker (except on counter attacks where he can use his speed). He can’t play as a secondary striker because of his aweful passing and dribbling skills but his shooting skills would wbe a perfect fit. And he cannot play as a winger also because of his lack of creativity and passing skills and his lack of defending skill . Above, someone mentioned that he did not get any support from Badstuber or Boateng. True, but IMO even if he’d gotten it he wouldn’t have been able to use it properly due to his lack of skill!

I simply do not understand Löw’s obvious fascination with him. He would have been my first choice to take off against serbia after he botched the penalty kick, but yet he remained on the pitch the rest of the game. I’m not sure why Löw does that.

The problem with Marin is that he does not defend at all. If you let him play from the beginning, your FB on that side is completely on his own. That limits him to being a late sub when you need something done offensively. Marin had a really bad game against Serbia, but if his great dribbling skills desert him, he has little left (Pretty much like Ribery, who sucks big time, if his dribbling do not work). But I’m pretty confident, that he can be a game changer in this tournament.

I completely agree with dropbear that Kroos might be a great alternative to Podolski. He definitely has a great awareness on the pitch and is able to create great chances for his teammates. On the other hand he also has the skill to go 1-on-1 with most defenders and succedd. The only thing lacking is speed. I think it might be better to play him in the middle and move Özil to the left.

I don’t agree, that Löw should replace Müller. He is the only one of our midfielders who constantly moves inside the box. With only a single striker, it is important to have someone who splits open the defense. If you look at Özils goal again, you might notice that Müller gets himself in a great position inside the box to receive a pass from Özil. He is a born scorer and a perfect secondary striker. That’s also what van Gaal sees in him.

Bativans on June 24, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Podolski’s technical skills are dreadful, however he did very well finding space and getting into space. With the fact that you normally find more German attacking players on the right hand side, his ability to get into the space available on the left quickly is useful. A lot of people hate him because that he wasted numerous shooting opportunities and missed a penalty, but IMO, if you put another player at that role he probably wouldn’t get those opportunities at all. Anyways, if we want to find a replacement, like Kroos, I think Loew need to change the role of that position, cause Podolski and Kroos are totally different players.

Mueller is played out of position, he is a second striker, not a winger. When Lahm, Oezil, Khedira and Mueller congest on the right flank, Mueller has to go wide and provide the space. That’s why he is not asked to cut inside but to hug the touchline more often. He is not quick, he cannot beat the defender one-on-one, his cross is not good. Only because, he is not a natural winger. It’s such a waste to play him there, but there’s no where else to go under this formation.

CW on June 24, 2010 at 2:06 pm

That’s the main problem I have Löw. He is tacticially totally stuck on this 4-2-3-1 formation, even if he doesn’t have the right personel for that formation. He didn’t/couldn’t change it against Serbia, even with the only striker in the formation dismissed. As we saw yesterday playing Cacau alone upfront against a strong defense isn’t the best idea. I think he would be best suited as a secondary striker. He needs someone like Gomez, Klose or Kiessling as target man beside him.

I think the Germany’s personel would be a better fit for a 4-2-2-2 formation with either a box or a diamond in midfield, Müller, Cacau or Klose as secondary striker with Gomez or Klose upfront, as they all have the tendency to drop deep.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 2:02 pm

The irony is that despite all his flaws he still provides that scoring touch the team desperately needs at times. His national team scoring record is phenomenal given his age and skill set.

That said, I would also love to see more of Toni Kroos. Great young player with all the skills to become a true world class player. He is also a master at set pieces, which could be crucial against teams in the knock out stages.

CW on June 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm

That is definitely true. He has that scoring touch, but sadly so many shortcomings elsewhere on the pitch. As a Bayern Munich fan I have seen him regularly for 3 years and I’m pretty sure these shortcomings were the reason that he couldn’t make it there. The funny thing is, that when he has been playing for his clubs, he always looked extremely sluggish and lethargic. When he’s with the national team he’s usually steaming with power and plays a lively and powerful game. And actually looks like he enjoys playing. I have never seen that playing for Bayern.

Funny thing is, that Schweinsteiger was much of the same before he switched to his central midfield position. At club level he also played mostly sluggish, but come international competitions he’s happily running and sprinting. I think the 1:0 in the EM 2008 quarter final against Portugal shows it best. Schweinsteiger sprints from the halfway line all the way into the box and scores. I have never ever seen Schweisteiger do that in Munich!

Kroos is an incredibly talented young player. He has the skill and awareness to lead a team to victory. IMO even more than Özil. He played a grat season at Leverkusen and had an even better performance at the U17 Worldcup 2007. He’s got a great touch and can hit incredibly acurate standards. If you look a Germany’s aweful corners and freekicks, it is really a shame that he’s not playing. He should be the logical substitue for Özil, not only for Schweinsteiger and Khedira.

edswood on June 24, 2010 at 6:24 am

Right on Calvin, I agree pretty much with everything you said. Especially about Lahm. He really seems to be underappreciated, and rarely mentioned. Though I must say that ZM always seems to give him the props he deserves.

Calvin on June 24, 2010 at 7:19 am

Lahm is the best FB I have seen in WC2010. He has certainly improved since 2008 where he had a mixed tournament.

Eddy Grant on June 24, 2010 at 7:55 am

where he played on Podolski’s side. Any thoughts on this?

makaay on June 24, 2010 at 9:07 am

“despite Philip Lahm being comfortable on either side, and more than happy to return to left-back” –

Lahm has many times stated that he could switch to LB if necessary but prefers playing at RB, where defending is easier for a right-footed player. Anyway, the LB position is clearly Germany’s greatest weakness.
Neither Badstuber nor Boateng fit there. Badstuber is so incredibly slow in running and thinking, Boateng is better in that respect, but he still thinks too much in the way a CB does. I don’t understand why Loew doesn’t try and field Aogo, who combines best what it needs for that position.
And maybe then Podolski (or hopefully somebody else) would not be so much isolated on the left with Oezil always drifting to the right and Boateng/Badstuber never linking up.

Anyway, putting Lahm on the left is surely not the best idea: They’ve trained and played with him on the right for months now, so why give up all that routine and understanding that has been developing on the right flank, while the problem would be simply deferred to the RB position – whom field there then?

Filip on June 24, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Mmm, no. That would be Maicon.
Lahm’s been very, very good though…

Bativans on June 24, 2010 at 7:31 am

Mertsacker is truly awful. His positioning is such a disaster that you can’t bear watching. The space he left for the Ghana team is so huge. Thanks to Cacau, Schweinsteiger, Lahm and everyone else who covered the gap for him, Germany didn’t concede.

Rajesh on June 24, 2010 at 8:56 am

ZM, seems you have missed Argentina – Greece.

NiWa on June 24, 2010 at 9:00 am

If anything, seems like he deserves a break from his great coverage once in a while ;=)

Sorry, I can’t watch two games at once and don’t have the time to do four in a day…

konfrontationskurs on June 24, 2010 at 2:53 pm

What do you think about man-marking Messi as Greece did? They managed to neutralize him quite well.
In my opinion greek defensive performance was quite decent.

Filip on June 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Here Adrian, in a nutshell.
Serbia played the best 45 minutes of soccer in the first half; 4-5-1; missed two 100% chances, one by Krasic with an open net in front of him, one by Ivanovic with a remarkable save by Schwarzer; two 75% chances, one again by Krasic and one by Zigic; dominated posession and allowed one aimless header by Cahill. Kuzmanovic and Ninkovic, the latter a real relevation yesterday, dominated the middle, which, I think was a tactical error by Verbeek, who had a 4-3-3, leaving the middle too exposed. It was encouraging to watch because we haven’t seen this side of Serbia before in this Cup, just completely in control.
Then in the second half, Aussies upped the tempo, the Serbs fluttered and it resulted in two quick goals midway through the second half. Key subs were responsible for both goals beacuse they strengthened the midfield and took away the counters from Serbia. Krasic awfull. Old man Chip great. Then an impossible header from Cahill and a nice goal from about 20-25 yards from the dude who was subbed in (and who scored the goal against Ghana) pretty much sealed it. At that point I turned the TV off. I turned it back on after 10 minutes just in time to see Pantelic scoring, on a Schwarzer mistake (a la Kingson from Ghana – Australia match). After that, a free for all, or, as the Brits like to say “end-to-end stuff”, with lots of free chances, horrible defending and a handball in the area by the Aussies, in the last minute, which was not intentional, but could have been called as well. Pretty disappointing end result by both sides, since with a little luck, they both could have progressed (at expence of each other, of course).

Good tactical analysis as always. Oezil is Germany’s chief creative spark, but that needs to change (or atleast be diversified) or teams will start figuring that out soon enough. Then it will be up to the likes of Podolski and Mueller to step up and deliver the attacking threat and build-up.

All in all a poor game by Germany though. Much left to do for this team.

In any case, for those interested in such things, Germany player ratings against Ghana

I don’t think you’re correct in your statement that Germany and Ghana were the best teams in the group. Did you watch the Australia-Ghana game? The handball was contentious to say the least, and it changed the complexion of the game completely.

I am Australian, so I’ll admit that I’m very biased, but we controlled the first 25 minutes and even with only ten men out there for Ghana’s eleven they still couldn’t break us down.

I’m really disappointed that you didn’t write up the Serbia-Australia game. I really like your tactical breakdown and I find it extremely insightful. I was watching both games in almost equal measure (still hoping that Australia would get through) and I thought that the Australia-Serbia game was definitely more exciting.

Sorry, but Australia were fairly dreadful and Serbia were a massive disappointment. Ghana are the most tactically astute and cohesive side of the three, and deservedly go through. Little wonder they didn’t break down the ten men, as that situation is completely against their gameplan and they don’t really have the creativity to unlock defences, admittedly, but they’re being severely underappreciated.

Mark on June 24, 2010 at 12:39 pm

No, I don’t think that it’s possible to write about both games at once, but it was fun enough watching them.

Could you please explain in what ways Australia was dreadful? Because what I saw in the first twenty-five minutes of the Australia-Ghana game was mostly Australia. I don’t have a deep tactical understanding of the game of football, I pretty much just watch and say “that looked good”. But it was looking good for Australia. I also think that Australia managed to play reasonably well (well enough to win) against a Serbian team that was blessed with a lot more technical ability.

Mark on June 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Also, when you say in the article that Ghana was faced with decent defences in this group, do you actually think that Australia’s defence is good? Or was it just because we were playing with 10 men behind the ball (most of the time). Because I don’t think that the defence we played against Ghana was very good, and was especially unsuited for such a game.

Carney was a good change at left-back because he does have more pace than Chipperfield (who started against Germany). Neil and Moore however, well, it became painfully obvious that they we’re quick enough to keep up with Klose and Ozil against Germany, so I would have been a lot more worried if Ghana had run at them more. I was actually quite happy to see Craig Moore get a suspension against Ghana, I felt a lot safer watching Serbia run at Beauchamp as compared to anyone running at Moore, which threatens to trigger a heart attack.

I guess what I’m trying to say (in my own rambling way, aimed at giving you the opinion of a die-hard Socceroo supporter) is that Australia’s defence as they lined up against Ghana and, in particular, Germany, didn’t instill me with confidence.

I thought Australia defended really well against Ghana when they went down to ten. Made it tough for them to break through.

First impressions are always vital, of course, and I thought the Australian performance against Germany was awful, maybe the worst performance of the tournament. Most of that was Verbeek’s fault rather than the players, though. I didn’t see the whole game against Serbia and I gather Australia did well.

Re: Ghana, Australia certainly looked better until Kewell was dismissed, but that’s inevitable against Ghana. Their whole game is to soak up pressure and then hit teams on the counter-attack. They did it brilliantly at the Africa Cup of Nations where they won (I think) three games 1-0 in that fashion. If you see them do it once, it looks lucky, but they’ve done it so frequently that eventually, you realise they consistently get their tactics spot on. OK, so they didn’t win the game – I think they were actually hindered by Australia’s red card, as Australia pushed forward less, and left less space in behind for Ghana to exploit. I think both sides would have preferred the ball to go past Kewell’s hand and into the goal, in a funny way. And of course, they did concede – but that was Kingson being Kingson rather than anything the coach instructed the players to do (which is a narrow way of looking at things, but then that’s the nature of the site!). Start the game against with the same line-ups and tactics, and I’d bet on Ghana every time…

Maybe dreadful was a bit harsh (this was a tough group) but I didn’t see much from Australia to think they did enough to qualify. Credit for the Serbia win, but the loss against Germany was just too, too bad.

1. Defensive frailty. Sounds like a broken record by now but it has been Germany’s most glaring weakness for years now. It is only a matter of time before this costs Germany. Loew’s failure to address the defense as he did his attack leading up to the World Cup will come back and bite him in the ass big time in the knockout stage. As poor as England have been, their players are more incisive than what Serbia and Ghana have to offer. What’s more, so much of the tean’s drive and link up play actually occurs through Lahm’s runs up field, it is inevitably going to leave space in the back, space that Mertesacker and Friedrich will not be able to cover adeptly. It was very sad to see Lahm have to cover for his own center backs against Ghana but that is the extent of Germany’s defensive concerns unfortunately.

2. Over reliance on Oezil as the creative outlet and attacking impetus of the team. Similar to Serbia, England have what it takes to effectively mark Oezil out of the game and not lose their shape like Ghana did. Take him out of the game and there is really no one who can carry that burden, especially not as long as Podolski starts and so much of the play goes and ends with him.

3. A real lack of Plan B. Since this squad was composed so soon before the tournament there was not much time to work out alternative tactical options, that much was evident in Germany’s friendlies and preparation. To use an extreme example, similar to Barcelona or Spain, when everything clicks the team is a sight to behold but stifle their primary gameplan and they are left a little desperate.